Five Standards of Authentic Instruction.

Abstract

Why do many innovations fail to improve the quality of instruction or student achievement? In 1990, we began to explore this question by studying schools that have tried to restructure. Unfortunately, even the most innovative activities—from school councils and shared decision making to cooperative learning and assessment by portfolio—can be implemented in ways that undermine meaningful learning, unless they are guided by substantive, worthwhile educational ends. We contend that innovations should aim toward a vision of authentic student achievement, and we are examining the extent to which instruction in restructured schools is directed toward authentic forms of student achievement. We use the word authentic to distinguish between achievement that is significant and meaningful and that which is trivial and useless. To define authentic achievement more precisely, we rely on three criteria that are consistent with major proposals in the restructuring movement: 1 (1) students construct meaning and produce knowledge, (2) students use disciplined inquiry to construct meaning, and (3) students aim their work toward production of discourse, products, and performances that have value or meaning beyond success in school.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 494 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.